In Jones v. Mallett, 125 So. 3d 650, 651 (¶¶5-7) (Miss. 2013), the chancery court similarly relied on section 93-9-10(3)(c) to deny the plaintiff’s petition to disestablish paternity. Our supreme court affirmed the chancellor because the plaintiff had signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that was approved by the chancery court over a decade prior to the father’s filing for disestablishment. Id. at (¶10). Thus, here we find the chancellor did not err by denying Hicks’s petition.Here is the question I have. Are you entitled to the natural parent presumption if you cannot be disestablished as the parent? I have a similar issue up on rehearing at the Court of Appeals. The law on that issue is not clear and I can make a pretty good sales-pitch either way on this issue.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Paternity
Last Tuesday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Danny P. Hicks, II v. Department of Human Services, State of Mississippi . The Appellant signed a court order of paternity without getting DNA done. In 2015, a DNA test revealed that Hicks was not the biological father. Hicks filed a Petition to Disestablish Paternity and Terminate Child Support and asked to be reimbursed for the payments made before the DNA test ($1,800). The trial court denied relief and this was affirmed on appeal. The Court noted:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment